3 ms·

I am sorry for your friend's psychosomatic illness. Cell towers, wifi, microwaves, wireless phones, etc. all operate at frequencies below infrared, not above ul

by jff 15y ago

I am sorry for your friend's psychosomatic illness. Cell towers, wifi, microwaves, wireless phones, etc. all operate at frequencies below infrared, not above ultraviolet. There are "regulation and health risks" for parts of the spectrum above ultraviolet because that contains X-rays, gamma rays, and other forms of nasty ionizing radiation. Things below ultraviolet are non-ionizing and will do no more than heat you up... very very slightly too, unless you're standing in front of a microwave transmitter, thanks to the inverse square law.

gojomo 15y ago
There are a bunch of people claiming to be sensitive to things like cell towers and wifi. I know the radio-wave science makes most of these claims far-fetched. But it also seems it would be simple to test those claiming the effects in a controlled trial. ("Is the Wifi Access Point you can't see or hear transmitting now, or not?") Does anyone know if such tests have been done and documented?
- noonespecial 15y ago
  http://www.skepdic.com/emf.html http://www.skepdic.com/emf.html Start here, about half way down there's a good discussion and a bunch of links. Looks like they're mostly alergic to seeing the power lights.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  > I know the radio-wave science makes most of these claims far-fetched. The radio wave science specifically says: - wifi - 2.4 GHz , ie. 5in wavelength. A well-formed conducting channel in the body of 1.25in length makes an antenna. The channel can be blood vessel, nerve connections, etc... Some voltage and current will be generated - thats just the hard science. How much of the current and voltage, how (and whether) it will be felt depends on how its all connected, its biology defining electric characteristics, etc...
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    A DC magnetic field like Earth's magnetic field is so different from a 2.4 GHz EM field, I honestly don't even know where to begin to explain the difference to you. If you didn't listen to your high school science teacher the first time s/he explained it, you probably won't listen to anyone here, either.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      you're hallucinating, right? If not, please explain what connection you see between my post and "DC magnetic field like Earth's magnetic field".
- iacvlvs 15y ago
  I know the opposite has been done, on a grand scale. A group of residents in a local suburb were complaining that a iBurst's (a local wisp) newly erected tower was causing headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins, totally disrupted sleep patterns, gastric imbalances and bouts of nausea and retching. They claimed that for these symptoms to subside took up to six weeks away from the broadcasting tower. At a meeting where concerns residents confirmed they were still experiencing symptoms. iBurst then revealed they had shut down the tower more than six weeks earlier. Unfortunately, if you're hoping to cure a psychosomatic illness, evidence alone just won't do it. Last I heard, residents were looking at a solution through the Department of Environmental Affairs. Full story at http://goo.gl/8UxNI http://goo.gl/8UxNI
daniel-cussen 15y ago
She already has organs that responds with pain to large amounts of non-ionizing photons in certain frequencies: her eyes. Also, yes, there is regulation related to cell sites. Looks unnecessary, but it's there in most countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Health_hazards_of_base_stations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_heal...
yread 15y ago
> Things below ultraviolet are non-ionizing and will do no more than heat you up I hate this argument. UV is also non-ionizing and it causes skin cancer without doubt.

by jff 15y ago

gojomo 15y ago

There are a bunch of people claiming to be sensitive to things like cell towers and wifi. I know the radio-wave science makes most of these claims far-fetched. But it also seems it would be simple to test those claiming the effects in a controlled trial. ("Is the Wifi Access Point you can't see or hear transmitting now, or not?") Does anyone know if such tests have been done and documented?

noonespecial 15y ago
http://www.skepdic.com/emf.html http://www.skepdic.com/emf.html Start here, about half way down there's a good discussion and a bunch of links. Looks like they're mostly alergic to seeing the power lights.
VladRussian 15y ago
> I know the radio-wave science makes most of these claims far-fetched. The radio wave science specifically says: - wifi - 2.4 GHz , ie. 5in wavelength. A well-formed conducting channel in the body of 1.25in length makes an antenna. The channel can be blood vessel, nerve connections, etc... Some voltage and current will be generated - thats just the hard science. How much of the current and voltage, how (and whether) it will be felt depends on how its all connected, its biology defining electric characteristics, etc...
- CamperBob 15y ago
  A DC magnetic field like Earth's magnetic field is so different from a 2.4 GHz EM field, I honestly don't even know where to begin to explain the difference to you. If you didn't listen to your high school science teacher the first time s/he explained it, you probably won't listen to anyone here, either.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    you're hallucinating, right? If not, please explain what connection you see between my post and "DC magnetic field like Earth's magnetic field".
iacvlvs 15y ago
I know the opposite has been done, on a grand scale. A group of residents in a local suburb were complaining that a iBurst's (a local wisp) newly erected tower was causing headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins, totally disrupted sleep patterns, gastric imbalances and bouts of nausea and retching. They claimed that for these symptoms to subside took up to six weeks away from the broadcasting tower. At a meeting where concerns residents confirmed they were still experiencing symptoms. iBurst then revealed they had shut down the tower more than six weeks earlier. Unfortunately, if you're hoping to cure a psychosomatic illness, evidence alone just won't do it. Last I heard, residents were looking at a solution through the Department of Environmental Affairs. Full story at http://goo.gl/8UxNI http://goo.gl/8UxNI

daniel-cussen 15y ago

She already has organs that responds with pain to large amounts of non-ionizing photons in certain frequencies: her eyes. Also, yes, there is regulation related to cell sites. Looks unnecessary, but it's there in most countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Health_hazards_of_base_stations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_heal...

yread 15y ago

> Things below ultraviolet are non-ionizing and will do no more than heat you up I hate this argument. UV is also non-ionizing and it causes skin cancer without doubt.